The Almighty Investment Strategy Following the Footsteps of Ben Graham

October 7, 2013

Pick the best value stocks with our Stock Ranks, screening and valuation tool. Try the live demo today.

This is a guest post by Evan Blekker, founder of netnethunter.com

What’s the best way to invest $50 000 in cash?

One thing that shocks me is just how many investors go into investing without a clear and focused strategy. They hear a rumor from Uncle Tom and invest, or just plow their money into a hot stock because they like the product or growth trajectory. It’s the select few that actually consider the investing strategies open to them.

To be fair, finding a strategy is tough.

There are a lot of strategies open to investors. Deciding on a mechanical investment strategy is equally difficult.

Since at least the early 2000, investors have been bombarded with a whole host of new, promising, mechanical investment strategies. With the Magic Formula, Piotroski formula, or ERP5 stocks all vying for contention. The number of choices make it really tough to make a strategic decision.

Personally, the decision came down to choosing the strategy that made the most intuitive sense, and also had the longest verifiable record of working as advertised.

While a lot of formulas seemed promising, only one seemed to fit what I was looking for – Benjamin Graham’s classic low price to Net Current Asset strategy.

So Simple a Caveman Could Do It

Despite the strategy’s age and exceptionally good returns, most of the investment community is completely unaware of its existence.

The strategy is really simple.

Investors screen for a subset of low price to book stocks. Essentially investors are looking for companies that are trading below liquidation value but, rather than just using book value as a measure of liquidation value, investors completely ignore long term assets in their calculations.

From here, you just divide the market cap by the net current asset value to get a measure of how cheap the company is on a liquidation basis.

Market Capitalization / Net Current Assets = X%

Simple.

Amazing Returns

In a digitally saturated world, it might be surprising that such a simple strategy could work so well, but study after study has come out showing that low price to NCAV stocks outperform – a lot.

If you read old school value, you have probably been in the value investing game for a while now. You also know that Buffett achieved his highest returns back when he was running his investment partnership instead of the 2000 decade.

His results are a matter of public record – and we have all of his partnership letters available at Net Net Hunter.

Net Nets are Garbage. Why Buy Garbage?

One of the reasons that investors don’t flock to this investment style is because most net nets are garbage. Investors don’t want to own garbage.

Net nets usually run into major business problems and some are bleeding a lot of red. The situation looks bleak and investors are generally pessimistic about the company’s future.

Cigar butts, dumpster-diving for stocks, the worst of the market, whatever people call it, investors are generally afraid to own these types of companies. Instead, they prefer to buy big beautiful names like Google, Amazon, or Facebook.

That’s totally fine by me. Long term investment profits are made by investors who have a good handle over their emotions.

Do investors have a right to be fearful of these stocks? Not according to Buffett.

Buried deep within the Buffett Partnership letters Buffett tells investors that about 80% of these investments will work out within 2 years. That’s definitely been my experience and the stocks that haven’t worked out haven’t been big losers, either.

About 10% of the net net stocks I buy fumble around near my purchase price, never reaching full NCAV while I own them.

10% percent lead to moderate losses.

Of the 80% that have worked out, some have doubled in less than a year and most have met my sell target in less than three years.

In the end, the gains made from the stocks that work out more than offset the bad apples.

So, why do these stocks work out so well?

The price to value discrepancy definitely has something to do with it. If you think of all the possible ways you can value a company, looking at a strict measure of liquidation value is among the most conservative.

Forget paying for future earnings, or even current earnings – net net stock investors don’t even pay for the full net value of the company’s assets. The figures used in the valuation are rock solid too. While earnings projections often miss and current earnings may not stay current for very long, a company’s net current asset figure is much easier to calculate and depend on.

Four Ways a Net Net Makes You Money

While the valuation is based on a conservative liquidation estimate, investors tend to profit through one of four events.

Take overs

Turnarounds

Liquidation

Dead-cat bounce

Let’s start with takeovers.

A net net stock fits the criteria because it has the right mixture of assets and liabilities on the balance sheet. Namely, assets with highly certain values and comparatively few liabilities. This means that these companies are often very conservatively financed.

Combine an extremely low price with a conservative balance sheet and you get a prime takeover candidate. Even though these companies have major problems they’re working through, other firms routinely spot attractive assets and swoop in to make a bid.

Of all the net net stocks that I’ve held, maybe 40% have been taken over at a price far above where I bought.

Turnarounds are nearly as common as takeovers.

I’m usually able to spot a turnaround in mid-turn, such as the one that took place at Trans World Entertainment. Trans World found itself in an unfortunate place, selling CDs and DVDs as iPods, iPhones, and digital media began to take off.

As a result, many of their stores started losing money. When I found the company, management was busy trimming its store count and changing its merchandising mix. It was obvious to anybody who had ever dug into the financial statements of a retail company just what was going to happen.

I bought too late.

If I bought in 2009 I would have made roughly 700% by 2013. Instead I doubled my money in a little over a year.

Ironically, while the investment strategy bases its valuation on liquidation value, few net nets actually liquidate.

Personally, I have never had one of my firms liquidate, but I would prefer it if they did. Since I buy below liquidation value, liquidating would mean I profit much sooner – immediately after the announcement as the price is bid up, essentially.

That leaves us with the dead-cat bounce.

Investors as a rule have no stomach for big business problems. Instead of staying on course when a crisis hits, investors start dumping the stock. The price of net net stocks hints that investors see these companies as worth more dead than alive… but that liquidation won’t happen anytime soon.

These stocks are typically dead-cheap and investors are extremely pessimistic. Any improvement in the company’s situation often attracts optimistic new buyers, sending the share price flying. Just take a look at what happened to IFON (not to be confused with iPhone) in January 2012.

Alright, What’s the Catch?

For starters, forget winning friends at cocktail parties.

Investors are infatuated with big beautiful names like Salesforce and Netflix.

If you start talking about the problems at fish-packing plant company you just bought, then even your best friends will likely make excuses to find somebody else to talk to about Netflix.

Garbage is not sexy.

A much bigger problem is the lack of investment opportunities during average or heated market conditions.

To put together a high quality net net stock portfolio, investors have to start looking internationally.

Canada, the UK, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia – these friendly English speaking countries have vibrant world-class markets that net net stock investors should take advantage of.

That’s why Net Net Hunter has focused its members’ site on international net net stocks, allowing members to find great net net stock ideas quickly and easily. If you can’t find enough opportunities in your home country then you have to increase your stock universe. You have to start flipping over more rocks.

The Rest is Up to You

The great thing about Graham’s net net stock strategy is that larger sophisticated investors can’t use it.

Net net stocks are usually very small and only have enough volume to handle smaller portfolios. As soon as someone’s portfolio starts approaching $10-20 million it becomes more difficult to buy net net stocks. This keeps them from being picked over by value investment firms and makes the strategy perfect for investors like you and me.

On the other hand, if you’re ready to turbocharge your portfolio returns, if you’re ready to make net net stocks a core part of your portfolio, then sign up for full Net Net Hunter Membership. The profit you’ll make off of even just one net net stock will be enough to pay for membership for years.

About Evan

Evan Bleker is author of Net Net Hunter, a site dedicated to international net net stocks. It often pays to look outside of your own backyard when investing. Net Net Hunter is a community based site helping investors make the most of their financial future. If you’re ready to earn 25% annual returns by making net net stocks a key part of your portfolio then sign up for a full Net Net Hunter membership.

What is Old School Value?

Old School Value is a suite of value investing tools designed to fatten your portfolio by identifying what stocks to buy and sell.

It is a stock grader, value screener, and valuation tools for the busy investor designed to help you pick stocks 4x faster.

I echo the “disgusting distasteful shameless plug” thought. Your blog is better than this Jae Jun. Did you visit that guy’s website? Only 50 subscribers allowed? Who is he kidding with that silly marketing scheme? Does he think he is GMAIL or FACEBOOK hoping the “exclusivity” of his dumpy screen will attract idiots from around the web? Sure, a fool is born every second on the web – but you Jae Jun should not help scoundrels like this exist. His screen is available FREE if you google it. And his writing is SO sub par and the content is such a joke “I immediately dove neck deep into investment books, desperately trying to learn as much as I could.” WOW, let’s pay him his annual subscription because he read Grham books. What a silly person, silly website (with spellings mistakes) and silly pitch. Jae Jun, I’ve been a reader of yours for many years…and look forward to reading your blogs, but this one is messy. You get a free pass, but if you keep protecting this imbecile, perhaps it might be better to shift away from your writings. There was a level of respect for your site, but this post is a joke. YUCK!!

Hi, actually I do but not many that fit my own personal investment standards. Back a few years ago there were a lot to choose from but these days it’s slim pickings. That’s one of the reasons I’m focusing on international markets. While the returns on net net stocks as a group are fantastic (any study on them confirms this) to put together a decent portfolio in this environment you have to look globally.

My website isn’t perfect but I’m constantly striving to make it better. I have been working hard on the members section but haven’t spent as much time on the front of the website. I guess that would turn people away but I’m more concerned with providing a good experience for members in our members section. That means listening to their input and tailoring the website itself to member suggestions. That’s why I appreciate the feedback you’ve given on here. If you have suggestions for how to make the site better then please make sure to email me directly at [email protected]. I would really like to hear from you.

As far as the screen goes, if there is a free screen that can dig up net net stocks from the USA, Canada, the UK, and Australia (plus Asian and European markets in the near future) then please let me know because if there is then my screen adds no value for investors.

There was a plug at the bottom of the article, you’re right. Aside from the plug, is there anything in the article that you disagreed with? Is my assessment or reasoning about the investment strategy off? I have most of my own net worth invested in net net stocks so I want to be as up to date and knowledgeable about all aspects of net net investing as possible. I would really like your feedback on this investment strategy if you think it’s misguided.

Good question. There are a few different definitions of it but the one I use is #1. The reason is that #1 is the definition mostly used by research papers. Graham used to discount current assets and then subtract total liabilities but I think financial reporting is a bit more reliable today and the accounts have already been discounted by management, plus the long term assets are there to make up any difference. Basically, seeing the outstanding returns in a lot of different studies I feel that #1 is the best to go with.

I’d like to leave a comment here, and I won’t be as nice as Jae or Evan.

I have benefitted greatly from an intellectual standpoint and also my pocketbook from listening to both of these men. I am a subscriber to both of their services and I can say that it is well worth the price.

To the two people who posted their rude comments, too bad I’m not in charge here, or I’d ban both of you from both of their sites. If you don’t want to do your own work that’s fine, but don’t get upset when you reach his initial page, and you have to pay to access his work. If you don’t think it’s worth it that is your prerogative. But don’t bore the rest of us with your lamo complaints.

Both of you need to get a life, and leave these two upstanding gentlemen alone, morons!

We are driven to provide useful value investing information, advice, analysis, insights, resources, and education to busy value investors that make it faster and easier to pick money-making value stocks and manage their portfolio.

Disclaimer: Old School Value LLC, its family, associates, and affiliates are not operated by a broker, a dealer, or a registered investment adviser. Under no circumstances does any information posted on OldSchoolValue.com represent a recommendation to buy or sell a security. The information on this site, and in its related application software, spreadsheets, blog, email and newsletters, is not intended to be, nor does it constitute, investment advice or recommendations. In no event shall OldSchoolValue.com be liable to any member, guest or third party for any damages of any kind arising out of the use of any product, content or other material published or available on OldSchoolValue.com, or relating to the use of, or inability to use, OldSchoolValue.com or any content, including, without limitation, any investment losses, lost profits, lost opportunity, special, incidental, indirect, consequential or punitive damages. Past performance is a poor indicator of future performance. The information on this site, and in its related blog, email and newsletters, is not intended to be, nor does it constitute, investment advice or recommendations. The information on this site is in no way guaranteed for completeness, accuracy or in any other way.